TransLinkTax tidbits: Of Jim, Bill, Doug and co.

Thinktanks spinning into overdrive

The leading reason for voting No is a lack of confidence in TransLink to do a good job and properly implement the proposed transportation projects (78%). Not surprisingly, only 11% of those planning to vote Yes were confident in TransLink’s ability. No wonder you hear the Yes camp repeat that mantra “…it’s not about TransLink” or “…TransLink is not on the ballot.” They’re trying to hide that elephant in the room.

Respondents to Insights West know that the plebiscite is all about whether to fund the expansion of the regional monopoly that is called TransLink with a sales tax hike of 0.5%. Full stop.

And how about the Jim Pattison effect?

The 86-year-old played “tycoon to the rescue” on March 6, endorsing the Yes camp and pledging to chair a committee to oversee the funds collected. But 55% of respondents are in the probably and definitely No columns and 14% said the Pattison announcement would make them more likely to vote No.

So why the backlash for the billionaire who famously saved Expo 86 and is now considered the richest man in B.C.? A man given the Freedom of the City award by Mayor Gregor Robertson? Do respondents really believe Pattison is nothing more than a celebrity endorser and figurehead committee chair?

Robertson hasn’t been particularly friendly to cars or coal in recent years, but he is a pro-development mayor. Vision Vancouver reported receiving a $13,000 donation from Pattison’s Great Pacific Capital in 2014. At its Oct. 28, 2014 meeting, the last before the election, the Vision Vancouver majority city council rubber-stamped the rezoning of 1290 Burrard St., to enable Pattison’s company to build the 60-storey Burrard Place luxury skyscraper. Complete with 813 parking spaces for motor vehicles.

Said Travis: “There hasn’t been a plebiscite on such an issue before in B.C., the premise to have a plebiscite was likely ill-thought out and ill-advised, and the idea of now opening up another precedent altogether of having private sector individuals — and even potentially union officials — overseeing public funds really is a direct attack on how the system currently works in terms of oversight of public funds,” he said. “Oversight of public funds is not done through ad hoc, improvised appointments.”

Good to go

Good is back in front of a microphone as the moderator of the Yes camp’s telephone town halls, which launched March 2 at Vision Vancouver-ally Stratcom. Good said he was approached by TransLink contractor Kirk and Co. Consulting and agreed to do the job strictly under the condition that he act as a moderator, not as an advocate for the Yes side.

Allentown

Almost a month ago, on Feb. 11, TransLink took a cue from the Catholic church and Major League Baseball and hired a second CEO.

Ian Jarvis, the $422,000 a year CEO, became an advisor to the board of directors, while Doug Allen became the interim CEO at $35,000 a month until August.

Allen had a 10-year career with the Government of Canada and 15 years in the British Columbia government, including five deputy ministerial posts. He would be entitled to a reasonably large pension after those 25 years of public service, but it appears he is in no rush to talk about it.

One source tells me he is eligible for $150,000 a year. Another source says it is $300,000. Allen would obviously know, but the former head of the SNC-Lavalin built-and-operated Canada Line hasn’t responded to my queries.

If he did call me, I’d also ask him whether he might want to give taxpayers a break on that $35,000 a month he’s raking in.

Connecting the dots

Another day, another report designed to massage voters into closing their eyes, holding their noses and marking the Yes box on the ballots that will be mailed out March 16.

This time, on March 9, it was by the C.D. Howe Institute. A Toronto corporate-friendly think tank that describes itself as an “independent not-for-profit research institute.” The board of directors meets every spring and fall to “approve the strategic direction of the institute’s policy work,” among other things.

The institute’s Benjamin Dachis wrote the “Tackling Traffic: The Economic Cost of Congestion in Metro Vancouver” report, using numbers provided by TransLink contractor HDR Consulting to come up with a $500 million to $1.2 billion a year estimate of what congestion costs us. But Dachis’s report is more complicated than the Tweets and radio sound bites would lead you. For instance, he wrote:

Taxes also have a wider economic cost: the marginal cost of funds. These are the costs to society of taxes because of transactions that people on the margin of making a purchase or working an extra hour no longer pursue due to higher taxes. Dahlby and Ferede (2011) find that when the province of British Columbia raises $1 of revenue from a sales tax, the social costs are $1.13. Applied to the estimated $250 million of PST revenue the province will collect, the social cost of the PST supplement is $283 million…

Whether the benefits of the Mayors’ Council’s transportation plan passes a cost-benefit test depends on the additional revenue sources to finance the plan. Using congestion charges or sales taxes, and not income taxes, would keep the annual economic costs of the plan below $1 billion. But that figure would be over $3 billion if the province raised corporate income taxes.

A disclaimer says the author “maintained full editorial independence.” But, consider the corporate make-up of the board of directors and you can safely assume C.D. Howe would probably not befriend the concept of a corporate tax increase until hell freezes over.

C.D. Howe partnered on this report with Clean Energy Canada, a Bowen Island-based lobby affiliated with the Tides Canada foundation. A common denominator is Nancy Olewiler, the former TransLink board chair. She is an advisor for Clean Energy Canada and a research fellow for the C.D. Howe Institute.

But here’s a thought: what if slow or low growth, combined with the IT revolution, means fewer people will be shopping in person, travelling to their jobs, maybe even travelling to see friends? Who needs to walk, take transit or drive long distances for social engagements when you can stay in touch by Skype and Facebook?

A society of slow growth may be the tipping point for transportation. With lower growth, the amount of goods that need to move may not increase at the rates we are accustomed to, meaning there is less need for that incremental investment in roads and rail.

The other wheel of the tricycle for this report? Real Estate Foundation of British Columbia. The philanthropic arm of the real estate industry is governed by a board that includes four real estate executives from Delta, Abbotsford and Chilliwack. In 2013, REFBC grants went to organizations like David Suzuki Foundation ($50,000), Tides Canada ($15,000), PHS Community Services Society ($25,000) and Light House Sustainable Building Centre Society ($14,163).

On March 8, the Marpole Residents’ Coalition notified neighbours of a hastily called evening meeting with City of Vancouver engineers and transit policy bureaucrats on March 11 at St. Augustine’s Church. The city staffers want to talk about the Marpole Transportation Strategy and convince them to vote Yes in the plebiscite. MRC is recommending its members vote No.

Problems with TransLink have been well described by local and national news media. Examples include: bloated management with overly generous salaries and bonuses, projects running late and over budget (examples: Compass Card, fare gates), and SkyTrain service shutdowns.

Some of us in MRC believe that the above issues illustrate that TrankLink has governance, managerial, and operational deficiencies that must be addressed. We believe that the most expeditious way to achieve the efficient public transportation system that we require is to address the numerous structural problems within TransLink before approving further additional funding for expansion. For this reason, we will be voting “No” to Congestion Improvement Tax in the TransLink plebiscite.

4 thoughts on “TransLinkTax tidbits: Of Jim, Bill, Doug and co.”

Last week I encountered 3 individuals wearing “Yes Vote” vests collecting “pledges” at the Roundhouse Station. I was pressed for time the first encounter so was only able to ask if they were volunteers or were being paid. Talk about obfuscation. After a series of pointed questions I established he had voluntarily signed up for the job but was being paid. Lol.

On the return trip, I sparred a little more with one of the others and after several awkward moments was told;
“it is not a poll, it is a pledge”
“we are paid but not by the Government or Translink”
“not sure who is paying the company that hired us”
“there is nothing to ensure if the pledge is honored”
“no consequences for not honoring your pledge”

On and on it went until the phone in her pocket rang and she excused herself to walk away and answer it. Ironically, at the same time, one of the other pledge takers was on his phone and the two of them ended their calls at the same time.
Man, they think we’re stupid.

Its real easy to see why business is pro YES. They and their friends all stand to make a lot of money at the expense of tax payers. Those high salaries mentioned in the beginning of your article tells us all we need to know.

While hospital cleaners are expected to work for $12 an hr. we are paying these ineffective Translinc execs. hundreds of thousands of dollars. There is something wrong here. Hospital cleaners will ensure you don’t die of some viruses and germs while in hospital. The Translink executives have a hard time running a whore house and bar in the middle of a desert, as the saying goes. They can’t even get what they have straight, so why give them an extra dollar. Ask Pattison to fund the expansion.

You hit it out of the park again, Bob!!
I had a phone call from some YES polling company and the young lady phoning told me that everyone in the province will be paying the .5% increase in PST to pay for Translink. I’m sure the folks in Vanderhoof will be pleased to hear that!!!LOL!!!!!

Translink is surely not entitled to any more money until they revamp the salaries of the C E O ‘s in particular, the so called police and the way transonic spends our tax money when they are an un-elected body of people as big money grabbers on the face of this earth. The C E O ‘s of the largest transit company in North America are paid $270,000.00 less than B C ‘s infamous translink execs. and their wasteful overspending and loss of good taxpayers money. Furthermore, we are being told that the yes vote will earn me more money, wrong, it means more money out of my pockets and into the hand of the coffers. I certainly say a definite NO to the plebiscite.